The highest German court, the Federal Court of Justice (BGH), has decisively rejected appeals lodged by former Berlin Senator for Labour and Health, Dilek Kalayci and the head of a marketing agency, effectively upholding their convictions for bribery and acceptance of bribes. The ruling, announced Tuesday, confirms the sentences of probation previously handed down by the Berlin Regional Court I, marking a significant development in a case that has ignited political debate surrounding transparency and ethical conduct within Berlin’s governance.
The case centers on allegations that the agency head cultivated close ties to Berlin’s political landscape, securing substantial financial support – reportedly in the millions of euros – for his training projects. Simultaneously, Kalayci, while serving as Senator, commissioned private services from the agency head’s firm, neglecting to clarify associated costs. This action was interpreted by the court as a signal of acceptance of gratuitous benefits. The agency head, prosecutors argued, was attempting to leverage these services to gain a competitive advantage in securing a lucrative contract for a care project.
While the Regional Court had initially ruled in favour of the defendants, positing that they did not permit their decisions to be influenced by the uncompensated services, it nonetheless expressed concern over the perception of Kalayci’s potential susceptibility to influence and, critically, her divulging of administrative internal information – actions which significantly damaged her impartiality.
The BGH’s meticulous review of the Regional Court’s judgement found no legal errors detrimental to the defendants. However, the rejection of the appeals intensifies scrutiny over the procurement processes in Berlin’s public sector and raises difficult questions about the acceptable boundaries of relationships between politicians and private businesses. Political analysts suggest the outcome will likely fuel calls for stricter regulations surrounding lobbying and conflicts of interest, particularly as it underscores a concerning lack of oversight that allowed such a relationship to develop and persist for a considerable period. The decision reinforces the principle that even the perception of impropriety can erode public trust and accountability within government.
